Imagine the 1st rung on the ladder of consciouness as not being blind to the information of experience within the environment. This only means the subject can "see" some information of experience. This seems to me to be the ground level of "understanding" which is entailed in the "perception". In other words by not being blind to the information, we can "perceive" (a better word than see) the information of experience.
When the subject "sees" or "perceives", this is data for the subject. It may be information leaving the experience of the environment, yet it can hardly arrive at the subject as full fledged information, if it did, then the subject would posess as true (exact) copy of the experience. This entails not being blind to the experience itself, in other words, the subject would be the experience, in full posession of all the information of the experience. The experience would therefore be enacted in plural terms or as a singular same experience.
Because the subject is in the environment and is not the environment, the subject perceives the information of experience in the environment as opposed to posessing the information of experience.
Does this lead us to conclude partially that only the environment can posess the information of experience AND only a copy of the information of experience can be perceived.
What would it take for the environment which posessess the information to perceive that information? Is this possible?
The next leap must be taken which states how does being in posession of data from experience in the environment lead us to be conscious of teh environment and conscious within the environment.
Is this all there is? Data from the environment and from the experience which is used to create a conscious figure!
Continuing...
More Blak-blah for the reader to understand.
Additional arguments.
OK OK.
Finally.
To be continued...
THE DATA OF EXPERIENCE ====================== On the other hand Serle's machine has no data of experience. Serle's machine is the environment, with the program not being blind to the information within its environment. Serle's machine has no data of experience akin to 128 bytes moved to main memory, the sequence R2D2 followed for 2 seconds, while "stdout" was unavailable. This is what I understand to be the data of experience in Serle's machine environment. The final data of experience would exhibit the empathy for what the actual sequence during the 2 seconds did mean. Surely the data of experience would give "looking for a free network connection". * * * Wait, does this not imply that Serle's program would now have 2 parts, the old part plus one additional part which perceives the information of experience in Serle's machine environment. The next big question would be how can these 2 Actors in Serle's program play out in order to achieve consciousness of the environment. To circle back to the question of whether being conscious of the environment entails consciousness of the subject, it would seem that the Actor subject would have to be conscious of the Actor's own environment. Would this then mean that the sand in Serle's machine would have to tell Serle's program, I really mean to say, inform Serle's program, of its gates and logic in firm words. The environment in which Serle's program lives, must be capable of not blinding the program and capable of passing information about its own environment from within itself, something Silicon was not programmed to exhibit! It now seems logical that singularity is out of the question. Plurality is in and this must be the second rung of consciousness. The question may be, as the second rung, plurality may just be the underlying tone or mechanism where the true 2nd rung of consciousness exist. * * * If there is plurality within, then it seems obvious there must be some form of communication within the plural environmenmt. Does this imply intent and feedback as part of singular Actors? How does the data of experience which is now in the hands of 1 Actor enable consciousness to be animated when it seems more than 1 Actor is available for acting as part of a plural process? In the plural process can we say 1 Actor is an independent process? * * * There is more than 1 kind of seeing the data. We are most familiar with the idea of seeing as a transfer of information of experience to the subject where the end result is the subject "sees" or "perceives" the data which all takes place in the environment. This kind of seeing can be aligned to the experience "showing itself", or in other words, the subject being made aware of the Experience through the transfer of information from experience to subject. This primary relationship does not seem to be symmetrical since it is only the experience which reveals itself. * * The 2nd form of seeing is the symmetrical form of "seeing" where the subject interacts with what the subject wants to see. Note carefully a revelation does not imply the subject wanting to see the experience, but the symmetrical form of experiencing relies on the subject wanting to see the experience and in doing so recieves a revelation of the experience through feedback. This seems to indicate an intent to obtain independent corroboration on the subject's part. In order to receive the feedback from the revelation, the subject could have either randomly probed for the information of experience OR the data was sought with an intention to see. Either case reveals at its root the subject's intention to see the information of Experience, hence the feedback and the intention to see. Mr. Sammi.